• NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Even if we got rid of it, the senate is still non representative with small states wielding more power, and the house isn’t proportional because the seats are capped.

    So much is fucked.

    • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 day ago

      I agree. It’s fucked that a citizen in Wyoming has a vote weighted much more heavily than a citizen in California or New York.

      However, as far as the Presidential race is concerned we have been screwed at least twice (Georgia G.W. Bush 2000, Trump 2016) by the electoral college usurping the mandate from the masses.

      Gotta start somewhere. Out with the electoral college, we are not commuting by horseback any longer.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        we are not commuting by horseback any longer.

        Is there some reference specifically to the electoral college and horses, or was this just about the passage of time?

        Half of me thinks there was something very specific about horses and the college after you wrote that lol.

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 day ago

          One of the arguments for the electoral college was that news travels by horseback and a new development needed a representative at Washington to accout for it.

          These representatives (electors) must therefore be able to vote differently that how they were asked to if they deem the situation requires it. Say it’s uncovered that one candidate was plotting treason, or has a heart attack.

          Because we can communicate instantaneously now, electors are not needed to vote for people or states anymore; a direct vote is easily accomplished.

          The unfair allocation of those votes is a different aspect of the Electoral College, but also a reason to be rid of it.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The Senate was never meant to be proportionate, and that would be perfectly fine if the House was actually proportionate.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That in no way makes it perfectly fine. It’s an undemocratic kluge when trying to get individual states that were acting as independent entities to sign on. The founders weren’t prophetic visionaries handing down the perfect democracy. They were horse trading for practical goals and dealing with the limitations stemming from literal horses being used to carry messages.

        There’s a reason when we regime-change we don’t install clones of our own system.

      • expr@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        While that’s true, it doesn’t make it right. All representation should be proportionate.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s how the Senate is designed and intended. That’s not the issue. The capped House functions as a second Senate because it no longer represents population correctly, because of that cap imposed in the 1920s.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Its intended, but it’s still a problem. It gives disproportionate power to smaller states and it gets worse as certain areas grow and other don’t.

        Wyoming with a population of 581k in 2022 wields as much power in the senate as California with 39 million.

        And if you control either the house or senate, you can pretty much stall almost anything.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SENATE. It is the reason Congress is separated in two the way it is.

          In the Senate, every State is equal, regardless of physical size or population. A foundational pillar of our Union has always been State equality. The Senate is working EXACTLY as designed, it is there specifically to prevent large States from dictating what smaller States have to do. Larger States have their bigger voice heard in the House. The two serve very different purposes.

          The real issue is the House needs to actually be proportional again. The cap at 435 means it cannot be properly representative with States like Delaware and California both existing. A representative in Delaware represents a fraction of the number of people as a Rep in California because the cap limits how that apportionment works. Without the artificial cap from the 1920s, and proper apportionment by population again, our House of Representatives would be more like 1,600 members and actually representative of this country instead of being a glorified pseudo Senate.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            A foundational pillar of our Union has always been State equality.

            Foundational pillars can be dumb and undemocratic. They were trying to pull together largely independent entities two hundred years ago during a fragile time that really needed unity, not setting out a perfect democratic system. There’s a reason we don’t just make copies of the American system when we regime change democracies into existence.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SENATE

            I really do get that, you don’t have to try and explain it again, but it doesn’t mean it’s serving the country any further, just like the electoral college isn’t severing the country or first past the post isn’t.

            Things change, and it turns out that this system is allowing for the tyranny of minority which is ironically is the opposite of the intended effect of it preventing tyranny of the majority.

            I’m not offering a solution, I’m just saying its a problem just like the others. Everything can be reformed if there a problems.

            But yes as I said, fixing the house would be a start.